Are people mis-interpreting "aggressive price point"?

[MVApple]

People seem to take this to mean that the macbooks will drop in price, but couldn't it also mean that instead of simply dropping the price Apple is going to put in higher quality components? So far the rumors are stating LED screens, and a "thin" aluminum designs.

I don't think Apple is the type of company that will ever make low end products, as least not while Steve Jobs is around. Even if Apple does start making laptops with a lower price, that higher quality component laptops are still offered.

I'm still waiting for manufacturers to offer laptops with ips screens, make a BTO, there are many of us who will be glad to pay for a nicer screen.

[iToaster]

I think aggressive price point is interpreted as improving sales, such as bringing back the $999 Apple laptop (Apple bumped the low end MacBook up to $1099 from the previous iBook's $999), so by hearing aggressive price point one has to think lower prices.

[zap2]

I think people are just hoping...I know I am!


999 would be"reasonable", they did it with the iBook. 899 or 799 would be amazing! But even that might be a reach.

[akm3]

The only reason Apple would consider changing to the lower priced strategy is if they really believe that sales are at a tipping point, where they can gain 10 or 30% marketshare by having a slightly lower priced product to get people in.

Right now *everyone* has heard about Apple and has at least glanced at the Macs. Many dismiss them as too expensive given the specs, and saying "it's like your computer *but better!*" is a hard sales strategy.

This is their chance to swoop in and really convert users before Microsoft has a chance to sweep the Vista debacle under the rug with Windows 7 (which I'll bet is just Vista with a new skin, ala Mojave, so they can get it out the door quickly)

So, Apple could strike, other then the overall economic conditions, there has never been a better time for Apple to take marketshare away from Windows.

[andyr2120]

I think aggressive price point is interpreted as improving sales, such as bringing back the $999 Apple laptop (Apple bumped the low end MacBook up to $1099 from the previous iBook's $999), so by hearing aggressive price point one has to think lower prices.

This is all I am hoping for - a refreshed design, slightly more capable, and just a bit easier on the wallet. If you were already looking at the current models, how could you turn down one down after changes like that?

If the design is clever enough, they might even be able to do it all without lowering margins.

[cdbob]

We are not assuming this because we want cheaper computers, we are assuming 899 for reasons of competition with pcs, and it will make a big difference.

[Beric]

We are not assuming this because we want cheaper computers, we are assuming 899 for reasons of competition with pcs, and it will make a big difference.

As I posted in the front page thread, $899 is still $200-$300 more than the HP and Dell competition.

And to the OP, just think how much specs the new Macbooks would have to have to be price-competitive with PC's, while maintaining the current price points. Apple won't do it because they can get away with high profit margins.

[MVApple]

As I posted in the front page thread, $899 is still $200-$300 more than the HP and Dell competition.

And to the OP, just think how much specs the new Macbooks would have to have to be price-competitive with PC's, while maintaining the current price points. Apple won't do it because they can get away with high profit margins.

The point of entry for Apple is higher. But a lot of those $700 dollar pc's that you talk about are basic, heavy, and big. I would know because I'm on one right now. Apple has a good amount of momentum right now because the iPod Touch and the iPhone are so revolutionary that people are more interested in what else Apple has to offer. I'm sure Apple could spend less money on R&D and crank out some no frills computers to price match windows machines, but that would not be very characteristic of Apple. Making nice designs and getting those laptops down to an inch of thickness takes serious work that not many manufacturers invest in doing so because most manufacturers go for the $700 value market and in order to get there you can't spend so much time in R&D.

In short, Apple products will probably always carry a premium price, not because Apple's profit margins are huge relative to their competitors, but because they invest more into bringing out a nicer product. One inch laptops and innovations like magsafe power adapters don't end up in $700 dollar laptops. On the other hand, if you're looking for "most bang for your buck" then yes, Apple isn't the best place to look because those little features they come up with (multi-touch trackpad) do add to the overall cost and are features that people don't "need" but they are features that go into a premium product.

[Beric]

The point of entry for Apple is higher. But a lot of those $700 dollar pc's that you talk about are basic, heavy, and big. I would know because I'm on one right now. Apple has a good amount of momentum right now because the iPod Touch and the iPhone are so revolutionary that people are more interested in what else Apple has to offer. I'm sure Apple could spend less money on R&D and crank out some no frills computers to price match windows machines, but that would not be very characteristic of Apple. Making nice designs and getting those laptops down to an inch of thickness takes serious work that not many manufacturers invest in doing so because most manufacturers go for the $700 value market and in order to get there you can't spend so much time in R&D.

In short, Apple products will probably always carry a premium price, not because Apple's profit margins are huge relative to their competitors, but because they invest more into bringing out a nicer product. One inch laptops and innovations like magsafe power adapters don't end up in $700 dollar laptops. On the other hand, if you're looking for "most bang for your buck" then yes, Apple isn't the best place to look because those little features they come up with (multi-touch trackpad) do add to the overall cost and are features that people don't "need" but they are features that go into a premium product.

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

[Tallest Skil]

People seem to take this to mean that the macbooks will drop in price, but couldn't it also mean that instead of simply dropping the price Apple is going to put in higher quality components?

Thank you for being someone who isn't me that knows they won't make it $600.

Or $700.

Or $800.

I think they'll keep the same prices and give us more for the money.

[JPIndustrie]

The only reason Apple would consider changing to the lower priced strategy is if they really believe that sales are at a tipping point, where they can gain 10 or 30% marketshare by having a slightly lower priced product to get people in.

I whole-heartily agree. Mac sales are growing, regardless of what the nay-sayers want you to think. I stand by my initial assessment that with the move to Intel, the only next logical major step is to move into software (a la putting Mac OS X into other things, besides the Mac). Having a lower-price is really going to 'push' everyone and will just be the tup of the iceburg.

Right now *everyone* has heard about Apple and has at least glanced at the Macs. Many dismiss them as too expensive given the specs, and saying "it's like your computer *but better!*" is a hard sales strategy.

Definitely. While their commercials with an old, stodgy looking balding guy claiming to be 'Windows' are cute, in the end - when normal, everyday people have a choice between a $600 laptop at Circuit City, and a $1099 base Macbook, I can see why they would make that choice.


This is their chance to swoop in and really convert users before Microsoft has a chance to sweep the Vista debacle under the rug with Windows 7 (which I'll bet is just Vista with a new skin, ala Mojave, so they can get it out the door quickly)

So, Apple could strike, other then the overall economic conditions, there has never been a better time for Apple to take marketshare away from Windows.

Absolutely. It's the first rule of Economics 101, lower the price, people will come. Look at the iPhone. Nobody cares that the 'new' '3G' data plan has little value compared to the 'old' data plan, at $199 they think they're getting a steal. Look at where Apple is now. Saying "New Macbooks - Twice the Speed, 1/6th less the price" would sell. I guarantee it. :D

[Breegy]

Thank you for being someone who isn't me that knows they won't make it $600.

Or $700.

Or $800.

I think they'll keep the same prices and give us more for the money.

I agree. The idea of them dropping to even $899 isn't reasonable. I can see $999 because the student discount is at that price, but that's about all.

Apple makes luxury products. Just like brand name clothes cost $50 more when they're just clothes. They're going to wear differently, probably more comfortably, but they're still clothes all the same. Just like with Mac, to some its worth it, to others its not. I personally think its worth it (Macs, not brand name clothes. lol). :rolleyes:

I paid $800 for a Gateway laptop and it's died on me about six different times. Lost all of my files every time. The $200 extra it would have costed me to get a MB would have been worth it, like a million times over... I wish I had known. :( If you're already going to spend that much on a product, you might as well spend the extra few hundred to make it worth it. (This is a little different with the Macbook Pro, and the extra thousand you'd have to pay just to get a dedicated graphics card... now that's a whole different problem, and totally not worth it.)

[hogfaninga]

Thank you for being someone who isn't me that knows they won't make it $600.

Or $700.

Or $800.

I think they'll keep the same prices and give us more for the money.

I agree. Common sense says that however after every new update they give more for the money. That is how technology works. I just don't think they are going to give as much in this new update as many think(some yes). If you think a new case is major then I guess it is.

[ksabek]

Like what I realized so far about apple, like for the past 2 years, is that they release new versions of the products but different price, big example is the ipod, always newer generations have the same price double the size, thats what they do same price better specs.
So for the macs I think it will be the same, even though for the same price you pay for a macbook you could get an amazing PC but still apple know that what people pay for it is worth it because the Mac OS is better and different that the Windows.

[JG271]

You could be right - LED screens are expensive, although the iPods and iPhone have recently seen a price drop - it would generate a lot of money in the run up to the holidays.

Maybe even the mini is going and being replaced by a cheaper macbook?

However it is only a rumor and people often read into things too much (me included!) , so that they can complain when things don't meet their expectations:p

[m1stake]

Thank you for being someone who isn't me that knows they won't make it $600.

Or $700.

Or $800.

I think they'll keep the same prices and give us more for the money.

"Aggressive pricing" means that the product will be priced to compete with other products like it. That would mean a price drop.

BUT:

If the 4% margin decrease is accurate, that's less than $50 on the base macbook. $50 off $1100 isn't going to make them fly off the shelves, so I would be inclined to agree that faster components will be used to justify their price tag.

[polaris20]

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

Absolutely true. Too bad you get a crappy OS with them though as well as crappy support.

[wordmunger]

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

1.34 inches isn't "just as thin" as 1.08 inches. It's 24 percent thicker. It's the difference between a very sleek computer and a "chunky" one. Clearly there are plenty of people who'd rather have a fat cheap computer with more features than a slim, pricier, minimalist machine, but saying it's "equivalent" in thickness is pushing it.

That said, I'd consider $899 to be an "aggressive" price for a Macbook, which means the real price will probably be $999.

[Beric]

Absolutely true. Too bad you get a crappy OS with them though as well as crappy support.

Regardless of what you say (and I know plenty of people who are happy with Windows), competitive pricing means the laptops are priced similarly to other laptops with similar specs. As most other laptops similar to Macbooks tend to be $400 to $500 cheaper, then competitive pricing means either there will be an additional $400-500 worth of components put in, or else the price will drop $400-500, or some combination of the two. If none of those things happens, then the laptops are not competitively priced.

[nick9191]

I'm expecting 2gb RAM and a Superdrive standard for the same price or $100 lower.

I see people expecting a $599 Macbook and I laugh to myself.

I'm not going to get into the whole pricing war, no one cares, if you want a Mac pay the price, if you don't theres the door.

I could list tens of reasons why Macs are in fact cheaper, but I wish not to bore you.

[Eidorian]

I'm sticking with my $999 prediction on the MacBook. Apple was good at sticking around the $999 mark back in the PowerPC days.

[iMacmatician]

People seem to take this to mean that the macbooks will drop in price, but couldn't it also mean that instead of simply dropping the price Apple is going to put in higher quality components? So far the rumors are stating LED screens, and a "thin" aluminum designs.I think so, although a slight price drop or increase is possible. From the conference call in July,

With the iPod, we start at $49 and go up to about $400, with many choices in between for customers, and I think we are as competitive today on the Mac as we’ve even been in the 12 years that I’ve been with Apple, so I’m very comfortable with our pricing.So I would say similar prices but both technical (like X1600 -> 8600M GT) and spec (128 MB VRAM -> 256 MB VRAM) upgrades.

[MVApple]

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

I read your posts and it misses all the points. Ok first of all most manufacturers never go below approximately 1.34" of thickness. Going below that point, especially to 1.08" takes serious effort. That effort translates to a higher cost laptop. You can argue that Apple should of made their laptops thicker and dropped the price but Apple is a premium products with premium features. Now in the first laptop you listed at $810 you conveniently forget to mention that this has an AMD processor. AMD processors are cheaper than intel processors, you're comparing Apple's to HP's er.. Oranges. The graphics card is much nicer, it has the Macbook beat there. The second hp notebook is only $150 dollars more than a macbook though. First you say Apple is 300-400 dollars more above pcs and now you say 400-500 more. In the examples you gave Apple was $150-389 dollars more.

Now lets take into account that these notebooks features a whooping ZERO innovations. No magsafe adapter, and no multi-touch pads. Do these have optical outputs for sound and hdmi outputs as well? How about firewire? Let's take into account that these run OSX as well and I'm not seeing the price difference you're talking about. Now what about battery life? My dad has an hp notebook and it has terrible battery life, it lasts about 2 hours if he's working with wifi on. My toshiba notebook I'm on right now lasts even less than that with wifi on.

If Apple cut back there R&D and delievered notebooks in basic packages then they would hit similar price points, but Apple instead chooses to deliver premium products with premium features and because of that you will not find them to be "Best bang for the buck".

Lenovo recently released the U330 that has a ton of nice features for the price, I made a post about here on the macbook forum. I'm eager to see how the new Macbook competes spec wise.

[Luzzio]

Apple loves their high profit margins and they know they can get away with it.

Any company which provides an alternative to the common/mainstream product will always have the luxury of higher profit margins (if they have the same cost which I think they should... since apple sells as many as dell and hp if I'm not mistaken?), regardless of build quality, how much better the OS is, design (though they tend to be better designed, or more eccentric), etc.

The main difference between Macs and PC's is that one will run OS X, and the other cant. And as long as people are willing to pay that extra bit to use OS X... apple computers will always be more expensive generally.

Add on: With that said... Apple has always been a pretty interesting brand. You may call it a 'luxury' brand or a premium product... but it seems pretty arguable that it just doesn't depend on the brand name to sell. People who buy macs, imho, would probably tend to have a higher level of satisfaction than the average PC user.

[andrewdale]

My only question, is how can they improve the Macbook specs "so much" without encroaching upon the MBP?

There will need to be a lot of changes to the MBP line in order for the Macbook to see such increases. Just my $.02

[christiemp]

The thing that doesn't sit well with me about the "agressive price point" is that it is most likely just going to take affect for the base model. I dont' want the entry level mac to be 899 or 999, but then the one I want to still be 1500....:-/ even with the education discount.

[aleksandra.]

The only reason Apple would consider changing to the lower priced strategy is if they really believe that sales are at a tipping point, where they can gain 10 or 30% marketshare by having a slightly lower priced product to get people in.

Right now *everyone* has heard about Apple and has at least glanced at the Macs. Many dismiss them as too expensive given the specs, and saying "it's like your computer *but better!*" is a hard sales strategy.

This is their chance to swoop in and really convert users before Microsoft has a chance to sweep the Vista debacle under the rug with Windows 7 (which I'll bet is just Vista with a new skin, ala Mojave, so they can get it out the door quickly)

So, Apple could strike, other then the overall economic conditions, there has never been a better time for Apple to take marketshare away from Windows.

That got me thinking... I never cared about Windows 7 and how could it influence Apple's strategy, however now I see Windows 7's date of release will likely coincide with Snow Leopard's. For many people one of Vista's drawbacks was that they offered 64-bit Vista Buisness for higher price than even Vista Buisness. And since most laptops still ship with Vista, and individual users don't want to pay for Buisness version, it effectively limits their RAM to 4GB at best. Of course, most people annoyed with Vista aren't that much interested in computers to know it (although of course many do, as mentioned above). Now, I previously assumed Apple will wait until they can sell Snow Leopard with it - and until flash memory's even cheaper - to offer 8GB RAM upgrade. However, if they advertised their notebooks as "the only ones without 4GB limit" or something like that (regardless of whether it's actually true), and imply the blame for this limit on most PC laptops lies with Vista, already-Vista-annoyed people might reconsider. Especially those who care about specs and like to recite them ;). That would mean lower margins (as RAM isn't that cheap yet), but also might be a part of the "technologies and features that others can't match". Feature part, that is. Although I think 4GB is really enough now for most people.

Alright, so I still don't think it is really probable, but it's possible... somehow.

[iMacmatician]

The thing that doesn't sit well with me about the "agressive price point" is that it is most likely just going to take affect for the base model. I dont' want the entry level mac to be 899 or 999, but then the one I want to still be 1500....:-/ even with the education discount.Or Apple could increase the prices for BTO options.

[hogfaninga]

Or Apple could increase the prices for BTO options.

I don't see them doing that. IMO they will lower Macbooks by a little across the board and still offer the same $100 discount for students. They have a good thing going with that and I don't see them abandoning that in the future. I don't think that was what you were suggesting though.

[bplein]

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

Reducing prices is a fool's game.

Dell, oft cited as having "more for less", is hurting.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Dell.html?src=linkedin

yeah, that's a good business model. Trim your margins to nearly zero, depending on volume, and when the volume dries up, you are out of luck.

Or, charge higher margins for a better product (but not necessarily as much as you are upcharging), sell less units, and have a better profit.

Uh, I'll take the second model, thank you.

[Abstract]

Actually, if you read my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6242190#post6242190), you'll see that PC's with equivalent weight and thickness still cost significantly less than a Macbook, and yet come out with better specs.

Weight and thickness aren't reasons to get a Macbook. You an get PC's just as light and thin, for less, with better hardware.

You never considered software that Apple includes with every Mac.

I'm configuring an HP dv4t right now to be around the same as a current MacBook (where the current model is old and just about to be replaced, mind you....). I have left pretty much all hardware at default, except:

- I upgraded the wireless card to one that gets 802.11 a/g/n and Bluetooth (since Macs get 802.11n and Bluetooth)
- upgrade to the 6-cell battery in order to get 3 hours 15 minutes of battery life (and in reality, it'll be less than that. MBs still win there by a large margin)

- I've added the most basic (i.e. "cheap") software for photos
- some sofware to burn CD/DVDs with
- software for backing up.

I'm at $1047 now.


And if you think about the fact that the version of OS X is actually good enough for large business, the $1047 I've been quoted doesn't include an upgrade to Vista Business, or Vista Ultimate (for both entertainment and business use). That's OS X.

- I upgrade to Vista Ultimate, and the price is $1207.99.


Should I add Norton Antivirus so that my new HP is protected against viruses? My MacBook doesn't need it, but if you're going to make them equivalent........ ;)

$1286.99 with Norton Anti-Virus for 3 years (which is probably the useful life of your system).


The damn system is still 0.24" thicker than my MacBook. That's 6 mm for non-Americans, and is quite a bit if you grab a ruler and look.

Here's something funny: Would you like to pay $39.99 in order to get $10 OFF Computrace Lojack for 1 year? Sounds like a steal. :p



Conclusion: Why would I pay more for a lesser system? The horrid battery life alone makes me turn away. Please provide another example. That was clearly not the point you were trying to make. ;) Also, for $1299, I can get the mid-level MacBook, which has a 2.4 GHz processor, 2 GB of RAM. I'd have to upgrade the HP again from 2 GHz to 2.4 GHz to compensate, but then it would be an endless cycle.

[TommyLee]

The only reason Apple would consider changing to the lower priced strategy is if they really believe that sales are at a tipping point, where they can gain 10 or 30% marketshare by having a slightly lower priced product to get people in.

Right now *everyone* has heard about Apple and has at least glanced at the Macs. Many dismiss them as too expensive given the specs, and saying "it's like your computer *but better!*" is a hard sales strategy.

This is their chance to swoop in and really convert users before Microsoft has a chance to sweep the Vista debacle under the rug with Windows 7 (which I'll bet is just Vista with a new skin, ala Mojave, so they can get it out the door quickly)

So, Apple could strike, other then the overall economic conditions, there has never been a better time for Apple to take marketshare away from Windows.
agreed. the goal should be just to get people hooked on OS X.

[TommyLee]

Should I add Norton Antivirus so that my

wtf's a Nortan?

[TheCreator]

$899 or lower would be great... but I'd say $999 would be the lowest possible price they would offer.

[hogfaninga]

$899 or lower would be great... but I'd say $999 would be the lowest possible price they would offer.

Free would be nice also, but that isn't going to happen either.

[Chris Rogers]

Do these have optical outputs for sound and hdmi outputs as well? My HP DV9220US (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?cc=us&docname=c00847955&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN)has an HDMI output. I'm not really satisfied with this thing though. I think it is overpriced at about $1,500 in April 2007.

"Aggressive pricing" means that the product will be priced to compete with other products like it. That would mean a price drop.

BUT:

If the 4% margin decrease is accurate, that's less than $50 on the base macbook. $50 off $1100 isn't going to make them fly off the shelves, so I would be inclined to agree that faster components will be used to justify their price tag.

This is by far the most logical way of interpreting what apple meant. But it also depends on where the 4% is coming from; materials, overhead, Steve's salary, sale price, etc.

I'm also trusting that this 4% is common knowledge, I have no idea where this # came from :p

[MVApple]

BTW do Apple computers come with crapware the way pc's do? I know pc manufactuers load up on crapware to reduce the price of their computers. It's annoying having to reinstall windows when you buy a brand new computer though.

[wordmunger]

BTW do Apple computers come with crapware the way pc's do? I know pc manufactuers load up on crapware to reduce the price of their computers. It's annoying having to reinstall windows when you buy a brand new computer though.

Well, they do come with a preview version of MS Office :p

Seriously, though, there's pretty much no crapware on a Mac. Nothing like PCs, that's for sure.

[chrisiw]

I think that Apple will take into account, the poor state of the US economy, when they pitch the price of the new MacBooks, as good as they will be, there is a limit to what the market will stand.

[Pacer69]

I think that Apple will take into account, the poor state of the US economy, when they pitch the price of the new MacBooks, as good as they will be, there is a limit to what the market will stand.

Exactly what I was thinking reading through this thread. Look for an $899-999 USD entry MB stripper and the better models will be at current pricing or POSSIBLY 100 less than current pricing. There is a market / volume opportunity now that Apple has made huge inroads for itself. Jobs and Co are not stupid and also remember they are game-changers.

[mbleopard]

This is their chance to swoop in and really convert users before Microsoft has a chance to sweep the Vista debacle under the rug with Windows 7 (which I'll bet is just Vista with a new skin, ala Mojave, so they can get it out the door quickly)


From what I hear Windows 7 is more or less an update of Vista with multi-touch functionality and probably a few more goodies thrown in there to try to please people. There is no way they would have rewritten an operating system from scratch since Vista. THere are rumors though that they are in fact writing a brand new OS

I agree with the other people who are saying that the prices will stay the same but we will just get more for our money, I would rather have Al Macbooks with LCD screens and multitouch trackpads then a $700 laptop that is cheaply built.

Anyways Apple's strategy seems to be working for them, all of the PC manufactures want to distance themselves from Vista with HP rumored to be preparing its own OS based off of Linux

[Drumjim85]

I would rather have Al Macbooks with LCD screens and multitouch trackpads then a $700 laptop that is cheaply built.



as apposed to those MBs with CRT displays? :rolleyes:

[Mindflux]

As I posted in the front page thread, $899 is still $200-$300 more than the HP and Dell competition.



As you also failed to point out, Notebooks and PC's have a subsidized savings passed on to you, which is why they are that cheap. All that demo crud that comes on your PC, the Norton, the Works Demo, the this the that is all paid for by the Software houses. Because this is loaded on there, Dell, HP, Sony, et al can sell the hardware cheaper.

Sony AFAIK is the *ONLY* company that will allow you to order your system without all that stuff, to the tune of $200 dollars more.

Granted, if you want to take the savings and remove it all.. you can. But some folks aren't that technologically inclined.

[aleksandra.]

From what I hear Windows 7 is more or less an update of Vista with multi-touch functionality and probably a few more goodies thrown in there to try to please people. There is no way they would have rewritten an operating system from scratch since Vista. THere are rumors though that they are in fact writing a brand new OS

There're rumors they're still using code from the earliest DOS... You aren't suggesting they're going to forsake this tradition? ;)

[m1stake]

There're rumors they're still using code from the earliest DOS... You aren't suggesting they're going to forsake this tradition? ;)

Not a rumor, 100% truth.

Windows has plenty of legacy code.

And despite my post earlier, I do think that the next MacBook will start at $999. If the MBP fell to $1799 again, that would be fantastic too. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Brien]

I don't know if they'll pricedrop the MBP. If they want to keep margins I could see them doing something like dropping FW from the MacBook. It'd be horrible, I know! But it's possible. :(

[MusicallySilent]

Ill go with the vote of 999 for macbook and 1799 for base mbp, 100 off macbooks and 200 off macbook pros and leave the student discounts the same, they may also drop air to 1699 but that is sort of unlikely. I can't see apple going much below 900 at the lowest for the macbook.

My 1799 point for macbook pro is people constantly compare to xps 1530 which is quite competitive especially at about 500 less, and similar features (OSX isnt completely worth 500 in the minds of many), by dropping to 1799 they break the gap a little and get much closer to dell and other manufactures in the non sale times.